Category: movie review

Movie Review: Meeting Evil

“When John Fleton (Luke Wilson), a depressed suburban family man and recently fired realtor, offers to help a stranger, Richie (Samuel Jackson), with his car, John is sucked into a surreal, nightmarish murder spree that forces him to question everything about his life, his mode of behavior, and the very nature of evil.”

Samuel Jackson as Richie

Starring:

Samuel Jackson

Luke Wilson

Director:

Chris Fischer

If you thought this was a cerebral thriller, you were wrong. It gets a 1 star from every critic and even audiences didn’t like it. Samuel Jackson obviously is trying to pad his paycheck by doing these horrible films.

On the one hand it is good to see a Black person as the villain, with intelligence and more to him than just shooting and cursing, however Samuel Jackson has only one setting for his acting, shooting and cursing.

Luke Wilson as John

The film pretends it’s a psychological thriller, but it ends up being nothing more than a hired killer turned good guy, turned bad guy, turned good guy. And, of course in the end the white people turn on the Black guy, even in the face of the Black guy revealing that the truly guilty person is the white woman. And the only other Black person in the movie ends up killing him. That’s what Hollywood wants to beat into our brains: Black on Black crime.

Oh and there is a scene straight out of gone with the wind, where the white woman Joanie (Leslie Bibb), the wife, is flanked by her children and tells off the negro she-cop Latisha (Tracie Thoms). Subconsciously it says “the white woman put the nigger woman in her place”, once again. The irony is that the audience is mislead into rooting for the white woman, but we are later shamed because the truly evil person in the movie is this same white woman.

Leslie Bibb as Joanie

The scene was unnecessary and lent nothing to the movie. It did not lead to anything else following it. It was simply put in the movie to hammer home the idea and visual that the 90lb white woman put a nigger in her place, even though she was a police officer.

The entire movie is formulaic and as a Black man, we are still subconsciously put in our place. You cannot just have the killer, happen to be Black. The racial undertones were blatant and obvious: nigger stay in your place. But, then again, that is nearly every Hollywood movie, isn’t it?

Atlas Shrugged Part I Movie Review

12% critical acclaim, telling that all the pinko communists show their true blood, by insulting the entire film, based on lies. They felt sheer guilt watching it. Oh, the critics were all over the place on this one, dishing out insults like it was going out of style. The fact that this is the only conservative movie ever made in the history of histories, is also telling. Maybe, most authors are all left-wing nut jobs that wrap themselves in the fantasy of academia. Who knows?

Atlas Shrugged Part I

The fact of the matter is, the movie pounded its point into their red communists hearts over and over, and beat them into submission, until they could take it no more, and there you have a tremendous gulf between audience approval at 80% and critical acclaim at 12%.

The movie is based on the novel by Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged is a novel by Ayn Rand, first published in 1957 in the United States. Rand’s fourth and last novel, it was also her longest, and the one she considered to be her magnum opus in the realm of fiction writing.The book explores a dystopian United States where leading innovators, ranging from industrialists to artists, refuse to be exploited by society leading to millionaires going on strike. The only clue to this strange circumstance is the enigmatic question “Who is John Galt?” which turns out to be a significant foreshadowing of the book’s premises. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, sees society collapse around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry (including Taggart Transcontinental, the once mighty transcontinental railroad for which she serves as the Vice President of Operations), while society’s most productive citizens, led by this mysterious John Galt, progressively disappear. Galt describes the strike as “stopping the motor of the world” by withdrawing the “minds” that drive society’s growth and productivity. In their efforts, these people “of the mind” hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.

The novel’s title is a reference to Atlas, a Titan of Greek mythology, who in the novel is described as “the giant who holds the weight of the heavens(the Sky) on his shoulders”. The significance of this reference is seen in a conversation between the characters of Francisco d’Anconia and Hank Rearden in which d’Anconia asks of Rearden what sort of advice he would give to Atlas upon seeing that “the greater [the titan’s] effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders”. With Rearden unable to answer, Francisco gives his own response: “To shrug”.

Dagny Taggart and Henry Rearden

Atlas Shrugged includes elements of mystery and science fiction, and it contains Rand’s most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction via a lengthy monologue delivered by the strike’s leader, John Galt.

The theme of Atlas Shrugged, as Rand described it, is “the role of man’s mind in existence”. The book explores a number of philosophical themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism. It advocates the core tenets of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. In doing so it expresses many facets of Rand’s philosophy, such as the advocacy of reason, individualism, the market economy, and the failure of government coercion.

The movie follows the book along very closely, but the movie acclaim closely follows the book acclaim.

“Atlas Shrugged received largely negative reviews after its 1957 publication, but achieved enduring popularity and consistent sales in the following decades.”

History is obviously repeating itself. The public is fed up with the government and this movie is directly topical to the Obama administration. There is nothing that any critic has said, that shows that they even watched the movie, and all of their criticism is about the production of the movie, not the movie story at all. It is unconscionable to say you have reviewed a movie and mention nothing about the story.

Ayn Rand the Author and Philosopher

Taylor Schilling of Mercy tv series (2009) and Dark Matter (2007) stars as Dagny Taggart. Edi Gathegi of Twilight, Crank and X-men: First Class, plays as her go to man and sidekick Eddie Willers. Graham Beckel of CSI: NY tv series and Brokeback Mountain plays Ellis Wyatt an oil magnate and reluctant client of Taggart Railway. Matthew Marsden of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Resident Evil: Extinction plays as James Taggart, CEO of Taggart Railway and brother to Dagny Taggart. Grant Bowler of True Blood tv series and Ugly Betty tv series plays Henry Rearden of Rearden Steel, a steel magnate and partner to Dagny Taggart rounds out the trio of capatalists that are under fire by the communist take over by the government of their each respective industries, broadly, and companies, specifically.

The story is compelling and very appropriate for our times with the Obama administration doing exactly what was going on in the movie, almost down to the exact legislations.

To anyone that has a brain and wants to see something presented crystal clear about what is going on in our times right now, this is a MUST SEE.

Roger Ebert Facebook Page Shut Down

Earlier today, the Facebook page of Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert was removed for violating the company’s “terms of conditions” following a controversial tweet about Jackass star Ryan Dunn who died Monday in a car crash after posting a photo of himself drinking with friends an hour before the accident. I did not post anything about Ryan Dunn, because he is not the type of person I would want to promote to anyone. I am sure he was one of the inspirations behind the movie: Idiocracy.

Chicago Sun-Times Critic Roger Ebert

What was the controversy about? Apparently Mr. Ebert simply tweeted: “He drank, he drove, 2 people died.” So what was the big deal? The big deal was that the friends and family were trying to defend the Jackass, as if he were a well respected member of society, when the reality is, the guy made his life denegrating the very society he lived in, i.e. America. Here’s a guy that contributed to idiot kids killing themselves after watching his antics. Here’s a guy that is one of the people on my list of “those that are contributing to the downfaull of America”. And, the friends and family are trying to defend him, when in the last minutes of his life he posts a pic of him being blasted out of his mind on alcohol?

Facebook Warning After Page Removal

I don’t wish death on anyone. However, because an idiot dies, does not instantly upgrade him to sainthood. People say, “don’t speak ill of the dead,” however, if you live your life in a certain way, you have to pay the consequences of such living. So Mr. Ebert called out the facts as he saw them. For his simple tweet, the entire facebook page erupted into so much vulgar cursing, which to any sane adult’s mind shows you exactly what type of scum you’re dealing with.

Facebook later restored Mr. Ebert’s page, citing that it was a complete error that it was taken down and not due to any controversy over the arguing going on on his page.

The Adjustment Bureau

American thriller film loosely based on the Philip K. Dick short story, “Adjustment Team”. The film was written and directed by George Nolfi. It contains a score by Thomas Newman, with two songs by Richard Ashcroft (“Future’s Bright” for the opening sequence; “Are You Ready” for the closing credits.)

David Norris (Matt Damon) is a young, charismatic politician running for the United States Senate. In 2006 he loses his early lead and is rehearsing his concession speech in the hotel bathroom, where he meets a woman hiding in one of the stalls. Having overheard his speech, she encourages him to be more original and honest. Attracted to each other, they kiss before being interrupted, and Norris leaves to make the speech. Inspired by the woman, Norris goes off script and makes an honest speech that is widely praised and makes him an early favorite for the 2010 Senate race.

So we are immediately thrust into this “romance” between David Norris and Elise Sellas and off we go. The bureau part comes in when Harry Mitchell is supposed to make Norris spill his coffee. The audience is left in the dark for some time as to how Harry is supposed to do this. It is not until 25 minutes into the film when Harry motions 2 blocks away from a speeding bus, that Norris is riding in, sitting next to Elise, that we see that the coffee spills itself.

A few things are wrong with this film. I don’t know if it is actually the fault of Hollywood. I don’t know if it is the fault of the source material, Philip K. Dick’s short story, “Adjustment Team”. Or just, the script writers dropped the ball.

the supposed romance between Matt Damon’s character and Emily Blunt’s character was never established as a real romance

the bureau is NEVER ironed out in the film

the conflict [ keeping Matt Damon’s character from loving Emily Blunt’s character ] is never adequately explained and the ball is dropped heavily on this one [ a very real point could have been made, but it wasn’t ]

Let’s take these three criticisms.

In the story, Norris kisses Elise in a bathroom before his concession speech is to be given. The very idea that a woman is in a men’s bathroom and in 2 seconds she kisses the main character, speaks of how much of a slut she is, rather than her being virtuous and the object of a real romance.

What they did not show, and what would have made the scene FAR more sense, is if we had seen, previously, of how his romantic life was abysmal and the women he met were drab. But, we didn’t. So, for this scene the only basis on this character is that he’s a politician. It conjured images of Bill Clinton, more than it conjured images of Romeo and Juliet.

Based on this one kiss in the men’s bathroom, the audience is supposed to deduce, and by deduce, I mean that there is no evidence on the screen, that there is a torrid romance brewing.

But wait, it gets worse. After that kiss, the next day, Norris happens to ride the same bus as Elise and they sit together, yet never see each other for 3 years after that day and somehow he is so in love with her that he would lay down his life for her, a slut he met in a men’s bathroom. Seriously? Why is she a slut? She kissed a strange guy in a bathroom after 3 sentences and ONLY STOPPED because his campaign manager walks in on them at that instant. Lord knows where it would have gone. I’ve seen pornos with better romantic development than this. At least in a porno, the pool boy is an obvious attraction for the lonely housewife.

The bureau or adjustment bureau, is never quite hashed out in the film. This is where I always blame Hollywood, but the source material could have been lacking. Let’s go with blaming Hollywood. They always put out pseudo-religious movies, but keep 10 paces behind actually saying anything religious on screen. So the bureau seems to be a bunch of angels running around fixing man’s life, but the film NEVER admits that. At best we get a “could be, could be not” and a shrug of the shoulders. But, in the same sentence when the question is put to Harry, we get also examples of other weird explanations, including aliens. We never have any idea who these people are.

So then we are left with the conflict of the story, that Norris cannot love Elise. Why not? We are never given a direct reason, or shall I say, we are never given an honest answer. Since the bureau, obviously, is not above lying, anything that they say is suspect in the film. Various explanations are given about the conflict but they are all contradictory.

Finally, the ending was a complete let down. Instead of some fantastic dramatic over the top punch to some political, social or religious current event, we are left with piss water happy ending. or was it?